Possible Issue Regarding Valley Parade Being Listed As An Asset of Community Value (ACV)

Can you detail the article because it's behind a pay wall.

 

Quote from T&A Article:

"Gibb flew with chief executive Ryan Sparks and chief commercial officer Davide Longo to Germany last week to meet Rupp and it is understood that the talks progressed well.
But any attempt to purchase the stadium would be delayed for six months because it has been listed as an Asset of Community Value (ACV).

The Bradford City Supporters’ Trust, which is chaired by Manny Dominguez, applied for the ACV status in March as their way of safeguarding football continuing to be played at the ground.

The reasoning was to give the fans an “undeniable voice” in the future of the stadium and prevent Gibb from selling it without their knowledge.

As part of the ACV agreement, any attempt to sell the stadium or grant a 25-year lease cannot happen without giving local community groups six months to put a bid together.

The listing lasts for five years – so should Rupp and Gibb strike a deal within that period, it would have to be put on hold until the necessary time has passed.

It is understood the club have been informed of this by Bradford Council – which is sure to frustrate Rupp after the positive discussions in Munich."

 

In a nutshell the Supporters Trust applied for an Asset Community Value (ACV) in March to be listed against the stadium.

This means that Gibb has to give 6 month formal notice of intention to sell or extend lease to allow 6 months for a Community based counter offer for the sale.

It sounds like talks went well between Gibb and Rupp in Munich last week, but thus ACV will stall any potential sale for 6 months.

 

A bit of a non story. Any sale was bound to take months anyhow and there won't be anyone else putting together a bid to buy the stadium.

 

It's not a huge problem really given we have years to play with still.

The more alarming part to me was that there's a 25 year extension on the table. Unless there's a colossal drop in rates, we can't entertain another 25 years of those terms.

 

How can anyone criticise the trust for doing that? It means Gibb can’t sell the ground for non sporting activities so will lower the price. What is wrong with that? What a negative article ?

 

TBF thats just Gibb offering the alternative - but also forcing us into a bid. Id be more alarmed if there wasnt!!! Gibb could name his price or we would be homeless.

Sounds like things progressing well. Someone on X saw Gibb, Sparks and Longo a 'little worse for wear' in Munich before any of these meetings were reported.

 

As already said in this chain, it's a non-story really other than letting everyone know talks have begun.

Buying a house these days takes the best part of 4/5 months even if everything goes smoothly, fully expected VP to take the best part of a year if not more knowing the amount of parties involved.

 

Who ever owns the club the status quo remains surely, the new owner can't sell the ground to be used for anything else but sport in Valley Parades case football ?.

 

Yes it looks like the X post that I saw and posted last week that Gibb , Sparks and Longo were on a plane from Munich was true. It’s very positive news and hopefully this supporters trust action doesn’t delay the deal too much

 

They were bang on the money Captain.

 

It looks like a bit of a non story to me. If an agreement is reached between Gibb and Rupp, a six month delay in it being finalised is nothing in the grand scheme of things. Begs the question why Parker has run with it though, and on whose instruction.

 

In any house sale there is always something that crops up on either the search or survey, this seems a relatively small hurdle to get over.

 

Communication between the club and it's fan base was and always has been a bone of contention with many.
Personally I'm not bothered who, when or how so long as we are kept in the loop regarding the main issues that supporters should know about.
The ground ownership being one such news item that can effect the club and it's fans going forward.
Perhaps Rupps promise of better communication has finally arrived on our doorstep but there's still plenty of room for improvement with updates.

 

Feels like a bit of a click bait article from Parker, as others have said it is a non story and a simple update could have been provided in a tweet.

 

To be fair to Parker and the club though, they get criticised for not keeping us up to date. I welcomed the article to be honest as it confirms the rumours that Gibb was in Munich last week for further talks.

 

Id prefer we Invest in the playing squad forget the ground until we are up and out of L2- get promoted and then re assess. Rupp will buy the ground and want to recoup his 'loan' over the next few years surely, meaning it wont benefit us financially as we will just be paying another landlord.

 

They do and I do too, which is why I said a simple tweet would have sufficed. I don't see the need for the big exclusive all in caps and headline which could be taken for the deal potentially falling through.

 

I have explained this before and will do it again. Under the terms of the Landlord and Tenant Act, once a Lease is coming to termination, in this case June 2028, The Landlord (Trustees of Flamingoland Pension Fund) are legally bound to offer the Tenant (BCFC) a new Lease in the same terms as the expiring Lease. In the same terms means all the same covenants such as length of Lease (25 years), repairing and insuring terms and so on, there are many and varied and the conditions apply both ways. The only difference would normally be the rent and / or the periods within the Lease when the rent is reviewed and the method of review, either index linked or market value or linked to Tenants turnover.

In the event discussions on the new term of Lease would normally start well in advance of the termination date, probably 12 months in my experience. In this case I know Ryan has been engaged with the Landlord for many months leading up to today's article, a great piece of work getting the Landlord back onside and even doing some sponsorship.

You say "it's not a huge problem", maybe but it is an unwelcome problem caused by interference from a group who clearly have not got the knowledge of what their actions could bring, in this case an earlier possible resolution before the Lease expires and without the need to wait out the CAV. Well done Manny and so you should be as far as I'm personally concerned.